One of the
pleasures of serving as AIA president is the opportunity to stretch my
thinking. Take the intense demands to address international practice issues
in response to AIA members' business concerns, not to mention the
mandates of recent Federal Trade Agreements. In spite of being a 150-person
firm, my office has not engaged in the proverbial globalization of practice.
So, perhaps, like the many smaller AIA member firms, we ask ourselves:
Why should I be interested in these issues?
The short answer
is that they do in fact affect us whether or not we are consciously engaged
with our foreign colleagues. A global economy is just thatglobal.
And let's be clear: We live in a global community of ideas.
There are many good reasons why we should keep international practice
models on our own radar screens. Although America's architects have much
to share with our foreign colleagues, we also have much to learn.
Lessons to be shared
For instance, look at the leading role our international colleagues are
taking in the important area of sustainable design. The work of Japan
and Germany is especially impressive. In both countries there are many
more built examples of commercial and institutional projects that explore
advanced sustainable techniques. Although these "first generation"
projects are primarily the result of government policies and intervention,
there appears to be a "second generation" of projects that focus
on affordability and economic payback while continuing to satisfy the
mandates of government policy. American legislators and architects have
much to learn in this areawhich would seem to be the motive behind
a resolution passed last summer in Berlin at a meeting of the UIA (International
Union of Architects) Assembly calling on the United States to sign the
Kyoto Accord on global warming.
What about the broader issue of livability? As we look honestly at the
mixed record of our national response to the challenge of more livable
communitiesattention to cultural identity, urban planning, and the
development patterns of cities and neighborhoodshere, too,
there is much to be learned about professional ethics
and civic engagement.
Here's another: Just as the development community in the U.S. has been
exploring such alternative project delivery approaches as design/build,
CM/GC, and variations of design/bid/build, the British are accelerating
the use of design/build/finance through their Private Finance Initiative
(PFI), which infuses private funding into public building infrastructure
such as hospitals. Given a similar lack of resources in the U.S., the
expansion of the PFI from our roadways to buildings could have a great
impact on the role of the American architect and the quality of our institutional
buildings and cities. In Middle Eastern countries, the PFI is being expanded
to include operations.
Can you envision yourself, an architect, leading an effort to design,
build, finance, and operate facilities in the role of an Integrator/Collaborator?
Get ready because it's happening now.
One more: Of major interest are the relationships in other countries
among architect, contractor, and material supplier/subcontractors, as
well as their collective support and willingness to undertake applied
research along with the construction of full-scale mock ups. Here, too,
we have much to learn. The collaborative relationships and investment
in knowledge development appear to result in more innovation and better
buildings than in the U.S.
Benchmarking these and other international explorations will no doubt
be instructive to America's architects.
But the advantages of international precedent are not always so clear-cut.
To take one example, for many developing countries architectural globalization
is a mixed blessing. I heard an intelligent call from architects of developing
countries to avoid a sort of international homogenization by respecting
cultural identity. It's
a call that should resonate deeply within all of us. Our ability to recognize
cultural identity is what separates the engineer/builder of the past from
the architect of today.
Different conclusions, different paths
Nor are concerns about possible downsides of global precedent limited
to developing countries. I remain thankful that the American design and
development community continues to reject design
competitions. Not only is the competition process tolerated internationally
because of its cultural tradition, it is encouraged by our international
colleagues as a means, they believe, of identifying emerging talent, encouraging
high-quality work, and retaining an open business environment.
In other words, even in those areas where our own experiences and traditions
lead us to conclusions different from our foreign colleagues, we can be
enriched by an awareness of other practice models. Greater familiarity
with alternative visions can lead us to a deeper appreciation for the
validity of our own distinct paths. As difficult as it often was in Berlin
last July to remain attentive as a representative of the AIA at what turned
out to be a disturbingly dysfunctional UIA meeting, the long plane ride
home provided a more balanced perspective of the importance of thinking
globally.
As my own awareness deepens, I am using an international practice perspective
to grow my local practice. In so doing, I am reminded of the words of
New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "What's likely to kill you
in the new economy is not somebody doing something better; it's somebody
doing something different." Unless it was yesterday, there is no
better time than right now to cast our eyes, both eastward and westward,
to multiple shores.
Copyright 2002 The American Institute of Architects.
All rights reserved.
|